Where Were You When We Lost The War?
In response to Helen Thomas's dogged determination to get the President to answer why he wanted to go to war since every proffered rationale for the Iraq invasion has proved fallacious, Bush stated emphatically that neither he nor any President wants to go to war.
War with Iraq was somehow just thrust on him.
There he was, tending to the accumulated garbage at the ranch, clearing away the brush, when without warning, (or detailed invasion plans, hyped intelligence, a strategy for transforming the Middle East through military force, a "set" policy, or outright lies about WMD's) war came intruding on his vacation plans.
Fine. Let's leave that fairy tale alone for a minute. The question I have is, why doesn't the President want to win the war?
We've turned enough corners in Iraq to make a dodecahedron, yet not one purple-finger moment has alleviated the need for our presence to provide what passes for security there. They haven't brought one single unit home because they were replaced by Iraqis who "stood up."
But it's not simply the refusal of the Pentagon to admit that they have not discredited the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force achieving clear objectives pursuant to an exit strategy. There's more here, much more that indicates a clear pattern of undermining a peaceful conclusion to our military involvement in the region.
It's almost as if, much like the way car manufacturers use built-in obsolescence to ensure future sales, there is a concerted effort, sometimes active, sometimes passive, to perpetuate the war indefinitely.
Bush himself let it slip in the same press conference he ducked Thomas's question. Permanent bases, withdrawal schedules, paying for the damn thing, all of this will be left up to future Presidents and future governments.
(No doubt reparations and extradition requests from war tribunals will be left to future Presidents and governments to address as well.)
If the administration were serious about Middle East security, they wouldn't have sabotaged the cover organization the CIA was using as a front to monitor nuclear proliferation in the region. You know the one. That company that Valerie Plame said she worked for while she was spying for us.
Oh please, please, please keep your fingers in your ears while you hum an English only version of the Star Spangled Banner so you can sleep at night, blissfully unaware that Bush allowed a known Al Queda operative to live, playing with ricin and anthrax, practicing his cutlery skills for future beheadings, when we had him in our cross-hairs. (And while I'm on the subject, isn't it curious that the CIA is still a leaky toilet even after that "traitor" Mary McCarthy was sent packing?)
Forget the fact that the lies we've been fed outnumber the corners turned by a factor of 10, at least. Ignore the shadowy figures who first came to our attention when Reagan was busted for running a secret war in Central America.
If 9/11 changed everything, why are same characters who brought us both arms-for-hostages and weapons factories in minivans trying for the hat trick by feeding us garbage intel about Iran. Why on earth are we buying it?
Now that "Curveball" is compromised, who'll they rely on to sell the next war? Spitter? Squeeze Play? Bueler? Catfish? Bueler? Bueler?
Anybody but Chalabi or Ghorbanifar.
Posted by Mark | Link
| Comments
(0)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: War in Iraq
